commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Numbers] Java version?
Date Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:05:01 GMT
If you're going to build for Java 6 using Java 7, then you should really
use something like <
http://www.mojohaus.org/animal-sniffer/animal-sniffer-maven-plugin/> to
prevent accidental usage of Java 7.

On 28 April 2017 at 09:51, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 28 April 2017 at 13:01, Gilles <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 08:42:36 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >>
> >> On Apr 27, 2017 8:21 AM, "Gilles" <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:10:57 -0500, Matt Sicker wrote:
> >>
> >>> Choosing Java 8 or 7 for a new component depends on the APIs you want
> to
> >>> use for it more so than what's current.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Indeed, the question could be rephrased as: Is there anything to loose
> >> (for a new component) if we allow the larger API of Java 8?
> >>
> >>
> >> I hear people are still using Java
> >>>
> >>> 6, but I doubt those projects are adapting new libraries or upgrading
> any
> >>> of their dependencies as it is...
> >>>
> >>
> >> That has seemed logical to me for a long time...
> >>
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> I say pick the version you think is best.
> >
> >
> > At this point, I can't say exactly.
> > The current code doesn't seem to need Java APIs beyond 6, but other
> > utilities yet to be added might benefit.
> > The only argument for leaving Java 6 is that we have to go through
> > hoops with the Jenkins configuration.
>
> That is not an argument for upping the Java version
>
> > Currently it fails in a way that looks cryptic to me.
>
> That's because Jenkins now requires Java 7 to run Maven jobs, though
> it does not seem to need it for all job types.
>
> > So, unless someone can fix it, I'll bump the dependency to Java 7.
>
> Huh?
> Surely you can just tell Jenkins to use Java 7 to build and test?
> There's no need for the source to be updated as well (there might be
> some Javadoc warnings, I suppose, but those can be fixed without
> compromising Java 6 compat.)
>
> But it's pretty easy to fix so it builds and tests using Java 6 -
> which job is it?
>
> > Regards,
> > Gilles
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Gary
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Gilles
> >>
> >>
> >> On 27 April 2017 at 09:41, Gilles <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:49:01 +0200, Gilles wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The POM indicates:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     <maven.compiler.source>1.6</maven.compiler.source>
> >>>>>     <maven.compiler.target>1.6</maven.compiler.target>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> but also:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     <commons.release.desc>(requires Java 7+)</commons.release.desc>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which is wrong?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also, please not that keeping 1.6 compatibility seems to complicate
> >>>>
> >>>> the Jenkins configuration:
> >>>>   https://builds.apache.org/view/Apache%20Commons/job/Commons_
> >>>> Numbers/14/console
> >>>>
> >>>> For a new component, shouldn't we just go to Java 8?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Gilles
> >>>>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message